Came across my twitter feed today:

Do unmarried women face shortage of partners in the US marriage market?. Text, emphasis mine:

One explanation for declines in marriage is a shortage of economically-attractive men for unmarried women to marry. Indeed, a new study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals a significant scarcity of such potential male spouses.

The study's authors developed estimates of the sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women's potential spouses who resemble the husbands of otherwise comparable married women. These estimates were compared with the actual distribution of unmarried men at the national, state, and local levels.

Women's potential husbands had an average income that was about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women. They also were 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree.

The researchers found that racial and ethnic minorities, especially black women, face serious shortages of potential marital partners, as do unmarried women with either low or high socioeconomic status.

"Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs," said lead author Daniel T. Lichter, Ph.D., of Cornell University. "Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women's educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors."

The top rated comment in my feed:

They wanted to enter the workforce, so why don't they want to be the breadwinners and marry men that make less than them?

None of the underlying stats and dynamics are a surprise to anyone here, however I'm particularly struck on the very rigid economic definitions and verbiage used, all centering around the broad, underlying assumption women will not (can not?) marry men of lesser socioeconomic status and men who earn less than women are not acceptable suitors. So much so it's a direct statement by the author marriage is "a fundamentally economic transaction", you can't get more clear than that unless you go and say marriage is "a fundamentally economic transaction solely for the benefit of the woman".

Are we at a point in society and academia that we can be flat out honest that women select long-term mates largely for their economic benefit, with all other things being secondary? I mean, wouldn't it be nice if we can get rid of this "finding the one" and "omg my soulmate" garbage and just be honest with men about how women select and prequalify men for LTRs?

Also: AF/BB, muh hypergamy!, etc.